Article Scaling Approach for Estimating Stand Sapwood Area from Leaf Area Index in Five Boreal species
M. Rebeca Quiñonez-Piñón 1 and Caterina Valeo 2,* 1 Geomatics Engineering, Schulich School of Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada; [email protected] 2 Mechanical Engineering, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-250-721-8623
Received: 29 July 2019; Accepted: 18 September 2019; Published: 20 September 2019
Abstract: This paper presents a scaling approach for estimating sapwood area at the stand level using knowledge obtained for individual trees of five boreal species: Populus tremuloides (Michx.), Pinus contorta (Doug. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.), Pinus banksiana (Lamb.), Picea mariana (Mill.) BSP, and Picea glauca (Moench) Voss. Previously developed allometric models for sapwood depth and diameter at breast height for individual tree species were used to build stand level sapwood area estimates as well as stand level leaf area estimates, in pure and mixed vascular vegetation stands. A stand’s vegetation heterogeneity is considered in the scaling approach by proposing regression models for each species. The new combined scaling approach drew strong linear correlations at the stand scale between sapwood area and leaf area using observations taken in mixed stands of Southern Alberta, Canada. This last outcome suggests a good linear relationship between stand sapwood area and stand leaf area. The accuracy of the results was tested by observing each regression model’s adequacy and by estimating the error propagated through the whole scaling process.
Keywords: sapwood area; leaf area; boreal forest; scaling approaches; allometric correlations; error propagation; Populus tremuloides; Pinus banksiana; Pinus contorta; Picea mariana; Picea glauca
1. Introduction Sapwood area supports several physiological functions, such as photosynthesis, gas ex-change, cooling, nutrient transport, and transpiration. Also, sapwood area has been theoretically related to leaf area with Shinozaki’s pipe model theory [1]. The pipe model theory is supported by several studies, most of which modeled species specific leaf area (LAsp) versus sapwood area (SAsp) to estimate a single tree’s leaf area (where the tree’s sapwood area is the predictor). Linear models for about 20 conifers, such as Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) [2]; Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Douglas ex Lawson) [3]; Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) [4]; Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco) [3,5,6]; Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta)[7–10]; Engelmann spruce and Subalpine fir (Picea engelmanni Parry ex Engelmann and Abies lasiocarpa (Hooker) Nuttall) [10]; Pinyon pine (Pinus edulis Engelmann) and One-seeded Juniper (Juniperus monosperma (Engelmann) Sargent) [11]; and Balsam fir (Abies balsamea (L.) Mill.) [12,13], were reported. While deciduous species haven’t been studied as greatly as coniferous species, there are some published works for Mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans F. Muell.) [14]; Trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides)[10]; and Cherry bark oak (Quercus falcate Q.Pagoda) and Green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica Marshall) [15]. In this last work, the model for predicting leaf area was improved by not only having sapwood area as a predictor, but by adding total height and live crown ratio to the model [15]. Researchers studying the same species under different site conditions have reported different LAsp:SAsp regression models (linear and non-linear). The discrepancy between results have helped to
Forests 2019, 10, 829; doi:10.3390/f10100829 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests Forests 2019, 10, 829 2 of 19
understand that the LAsp:SAsp relationship is driven by site conditions such as stand density [16–18], climatic factors [19], and physical characteristics [20]. Naturally, it is expected that the LAsp:SAsp relationship is species-specific [20], but this has not always been observed. For example, the Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) LAsp:SAsp allometric relationship is linear [21] but in another study, a nonlinear regression better explained this relationship [10]. Thus, while in theory the LAsp:SAsp relationship is positioned as linear, this could change due to site conditions. Average sapwood depth (sd) has been used instead of sapwood area to indirectly estimate other forest stand characteristics such as canopy cover densities and foliage biomass, by combining remotely sensed data and field data [22,23]. The method consists of estimating foliage biomass as a function of the diameter at the breast height (D) by previously modelling sd:D relationships to predict D for a whole tree stand [23]. The authors used equations to estimate foliage biomass and sapwood area. A previously reported relationship for sd:D to estimate foliage biomass was used as an indicator of D in [22]. The sd:D relationship used in both studies was obtained from [24]. To the authors’ knowledge, [24] is one of a very small number of published works reporting results for single tree sd:D relationships ([24] cited three more published works on this topic). In Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and some other conifers, sapwood depth increases as the inside bark tree’s diameter increases [24]. Most of the species showed that trees had an exponential sapwood depth growth until they reached a diameter of 25.4 38.1 cm, where sapwood depth would then plateau. Sapwood depth in older trees − tended to increase at a slower rate than younger trees. Except for Pinus contorta, this was the general tendency, where there was large variability in sapwood depth, and some trees that were smaller in diameter showed a larger sapwood depth than those with a larger diameter. Douglas fir trees with the same diameter had different sapwood depths according to their location (coast area or interior land), and elevation [24]. Even though there is sufficient work supporting the strong relationships between a single tree’s sapwood area and leaf area, these models cannot be used to scale up to large regions or stands. In a forested region, it is expected that leaf area increases as the ground area increases, and of course as the ground area increases, the greater likelihood of the area having multiple species. Therefore, it is insufficient to use a single tree model to interpolate either leaf area or sapwood area values for a group of trees composed of different species [25,26]. Thus, it is necessary to develop species specific models for the LAsp:SAsp relationship. More recent studies attempted to model Eucaliptus regnans’ stand sapwood area-basal area ratios by scaling up individual stumps’ visual heartwood-sapwood differentiation and using digital photography. They obtained a linear model with a coefficient of determination of 0.85 [27]). Modeled sapwood area at the stand level using LIDAR images and individual tree detection algorithms were used to predict sapwood area/basal area relationships at the stand level [28]. Their predicted values drew correlation coefficients that varied from 0.5 to 0.84, where the most adequate fit was with a regression model that combined LIDAR derived data and observed basal area. A mathematical model of a catchment’s basal area-sapwood area was created by indirect estimates through LIDAR imaging [29]. Not all methods for estimating sapwood area will give the same results [30,31] and the direct or indirect measurement of leaf area may also produce different outcomes [32]. Given this, the research hypothesis in this study is that in addition to site conditions—such as stand density, climatic factors, and physical characteristics, the methods used to measure and estimate sapwood area and leaf area, significantly influence the LAsp:SAsp relationship and therefore, the calculation of the error propagated to the final estimate will determine the quality of an allometric model and help detect if the model contributes to over- or under-estimates. A thorough statistical analysis to determine the normality of each dataset, will help to determine if a regression model fits the dataset or whether other statistical/mathematical models should be considered. Hence, the objectives of this paper are: (1) To create reliable regression models—if adequate for each dataset—to estimate sapwood area at the breast height for Populus tremuloides, Pinus banksiana, Pinus contorta, Picea glauca, and Picea mariana; (2) to develop appropriate scaling LA-SA relationships for forest stands comprised of a mixture of these Forests 2019, 10, 829 3 of 19 species; and (3) to determine the absolute error propagated while scaling sapwood depth from an individual tree up to the stand level.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Model Approach and Sampling Design For scaling purposes (from tree-to-stand level), a vegetated stand with vascular species has been conceptualized as an area of forested land (a stand) with a single tree with a sapwood area SAplot equal to the summation of all the individual trees’ sapwood cross-sectional area (SAi) inside the stand.
Xn SAplot = SAi (1) i = 1 where SAi is species specific for each tree i in the stand containing n trees of different species. Similarly, the single tree’s leaf area (LAplot) will be the summation of all trees’ leaf area inside the stand.
Xn LAplot = LAi (2) i = 1
Despite the simplicity of the concept, it considers vegetation heterogeneity by using species specific models to scale up biophysical characteristics. At the tree-level, linear regression models were developed for each species sapwood depth sd versus outer bark diameter at breast height (DOB) data so that Equation (3) below could be used to estimate SAi:
2 SA = π D sd sd (3) i OBi i − i
th th where sdi is each i tree’s average sapwood depth and DOBi is the i tree’s diameter at breast height. Equation (3) calculates SAi as the region lying between two concentric circles within a tree’s cross-section. The outermost circle borders the bark and vascular cambium, while the innermost one bounds the heartwood. These circles are naturally irregular but tree trunks are treated as having a cylindrical shape. The models obtained were used to estimate every tree’s sapwood area SAi inside the delimited stand. Equation (1) is then used to estimate the stand level sapwood area (SAplot) of that single tree representing the whole stand. The correlation between species specific leaf area and sapwood area (LAsp:SAsp) and a mathematical scaling approach detailed in Section3 were used to estimate LAplot:SAplot. The leaf area for the stand LAplot, was obtained by measuring the Leaf Area Index (LAI) by light transmission, and the surface ground area of interest. Stands of four different sizes are used to validate the LAsp:SAsp relationship. Four stands were 60 60 m, and nine were 10 10 m. These stands were × × located in the Sibbald Areas of Kananaskis Country, Alberta, Canada. The species composition of these stands was either dominated by deciduous trees (mainly Populus tremulolides), or coniferous trees (Pinus contorta and Picea glauca). Figures1 and2 show the location and delimitation of these stands. Two more stands were delimited at Whitecourt, in northern Alberta: One was dominated by Pinus banksiana individuals (20 20 m) and one was dominated by Picea mariana (15 15 m) × × individuals. The stands whose species composition was dominated by a conifer tree were labelled as “coniferous”, and for those whose species composition was dominated by a deciduous tree were labeled as “deciduous”. The 10 10 m stands were distinguished from the larger ones ( 300 m2) by × ≥ adding a prime symbol in front of their assigned number. Field data collected at each stand included: (a) Number of trees per stand, (b) species identification, and outer bark diameter at breast height for every tree inside the stand, and (c) Leaf Area Index for the stand. LAI was measured in the 60 60 m × stands using the Tracing Radiation and Architecture Canopies (TRAC, 3rd Wave Engineering Co.; Forests 2019, 10, 829 4 of 19
Nebraska, US) was used to measure LAI in the stands of 20 × 20 m and 15 × 15 m, located in Whitecourt. Kananaskis Valley is a Montane closed forest formation [34] within the Rocky Mountains [35,36]. The Montane forest is classified as an ecoregion within the Cordilleran eco-province with a particular mix of physiography and air masses leading to unique climatic conditions [36]. Within Alberta, the Montane forest maintains the warmest temperatures during the winter than any other forested ecosystem. This type of forest has ridged foothills and a marked rolling topography. The Whitecourt forest is within the mid boreal mixed-wood ecoregion [36] and considered a closed forest formation [37] in the Southern Alberta uplands [36]. Further details on the field sites can be found in [32,38].
2.2. Treatment of Saplings Since saplings generally lack heartwood and being mostly composed of sapwood [21,31,39], saplings correlations between DOB and 𝑠𝑑 , or between DOB and cross-sectional area per species (SAsp) will be different than for mature trees and thus, were treated separately. Furthermore, due to their size and composition, saplings were considered part of the understory, and this study focused on Forestsscaling2019 allometric, 10, 829 correlations of the overstory. Saplings were considered those trees with4 ofDOB 19 ranging between 2.41 cm and 10.2 cm, and heights between 38.1 cm and 76.2 cm. Trees found inside of the stands with a DOB ≤ 10cm were considered saplings, and were excluded from all allometric Nepean, Ontario, Canada) device. The Canopy Analyzer LAI-2000 (LI-COR Incorporated; Lincoln, correlations. Nebraska, US) was used to measure LAI in the stands of 20 20 m and 15 15 m, located in Whitecourt. × ×
Forests 2019, 10, 829 5 of 19 Figure 1.1. GeographicalGeographical location location of of coniferous coniferous plots. plots. The plotsThe plots are in are the in Sibbald the Sibbald area, Kananaskis area, Kananaskis Country. Country.
. Figure 2. Geographical location of deciduous plots. The plots are in the Sibbald areas, south-east of BarrierFigure Lake 2. Geographical (Kananaskis location Country). of deciduous plots. The plots are in the Sibbald areas, south-east of Barrier Lake (Kananaskis Country).
2.3. Statistical Analysis For each species, we performed statistical analyses to determine the most adequate regression model. These statistics include the Pearson’s correlation coefficient, detection of outliers, the regression analysis, ANOVA, list of unusual observations, and the lack-of-fit test. Finally, each linear model’s residuals were examined to check the model adequacy. Model adequacy checking included a normal plot of residuals and a plot of residuals versus fitted values. In addition to the correlation analysis, a pairwise comparison of the coefficient of variation (COV) confidence intervals (C.I.) was used as an indication of the relationship between the scaling parameters at the stand scale (i.e., between SAplot and LAI, and between SAplot and LAplot). The pairwise comparison consisted of comparing the parameters’ C.I.s to see if they overlapped or not. This was another way to test if there was correlation between the variables. Because they are different parameters and the units differ, it was not suitable to use mean values or standard deviations to test the similarity between the two sample populations [40–42]. For 100 (1 − α)% and ν = n − 1 degrees of freedom, the modified McKay confidence interval for a COV [41] is: